On Friday 13 July 2007 19:25, Julian Mehnle wrote: > Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > The second part of the change, changing the SPF None response string > > from > > > > "%s is neither permitted nor denied by %s", > > > > to > > > > "%s doesn't provide an SPF record" > > > > is a wording improvement, but given that it's been this way for several > > years, I don't know if there are programs that are dependent on that > > string. > > If there was any code depending on the explanatory result text, then that > would be a design bug in such code. > > > So, I'd suggest this is an improvement, but not entirely without risk. > > I'd tend not to want to make it, but I could understand either way. > > I say go ahead with the change. I wouldn't... er... would not use a > contraction, though. Say "%s does not provide an SPF record" instead. Upon reflection, I agree with Julian. Go for it. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
